The train was to run the same route, however , as 2 separate trains (the Capitol Limited and the Southwest Chief ) do now.

The original idea was to make the TWO train journey seem as ONE. The schedule of the two trains was not to be changed. Also, the lay-over in Chicago was identical to what it still is today. To make it "seem" like a ONE train journey, passengers were permitted to re-board the Chief after de-training for only one or two hours in Chicago. If I recall correctly, the Capitol actually stayed IN Union Station itself and did not go to the yard to "transform" into the Chief. I remember all this because I personally was able to experience the process. I must admit, it WAS odd re-boarding the Chief so much earlier than the passengers actually boarding at Chicago. If I recall correctly, ONLY passengers who ARRIVED on the Capitol into Chicago were permitted (after de-training briefly) to re-board the train and return to their seats or accomodations. I really do not remember how many passengers took advantage of the opportunity, but I did. As I re-boarded my sleeper, however , I noticed an Amtrak police officer seated in one of the economy bedrooms, reading. He greeted me briefly , but did not ask to see my ticket. I simply returned to MY sleeper and spent the rest of the time there. I believe I was the only passenger in my sleeper car at the time.

So this was a very unique opportunity. Unfortunately it did not last long. I guess it was too dificult to service the out-bound Chief properly IN station. Also, I guess Amtrak was concerned about permitting passengers back on the train without any "supervision." I remember now that ONLY first-class passengers were permitted the opportunity of re-boarding the train early. Anyhow, the "experiment" lasted for only a short while. Like I said, Amtrak found that it was just too difficult to "manage." Plus, the lay-over IS quite a lengthy one. If the Capitol arrived on time at about 9:30 AM and the Chief did not leave until about 3:30 PM that afternoon. Perhaps if the lay-over was not as lengthy, the "experiment" might have worked. But it was "neat" at least having this unique opportunity at least once.

I really LIKED the idea , because I was able to re-board the train and lie down in my sleeper for a while---instead of sitting in the Metro Lounge for 5-6 hours , which CAN be tedious. I guess, however , that I understand Amtrak's "dilemma." Sleepers do not lock from the outside. Valueables left in them COULD be "targeted" by passengers who decided to re-board before the other sleeper passengers , and it would be impossible to place an Amtrak police officer in EVERY sleeper car while it is "vacated." I guess , though , that passengers COULD be warned not to leave valueables in their sleepers.

Anyhow, that was the way the grand "experiment" was to work.

I LIKE the idea of having another "national" train besides the Sunset. I just do not know how feasible the whole plan would be. Really, the Capitol/Chief would be ideal. The dilemma would be to service the Capitol in a much SHORTER period of time than is down now----IN station, perhaps. Perhaps this is not as impossible as it might seem. It would be great if the Capitol to Chief lay-over was just 3-4 hours , perhaps. Then passengers (especially first-class passengers) might be invited to either stay ON the train or return to it after a brief visit to the station. Plan the Chief's departure for , let's say 1:00 PM or 1:30 PM. I realize this is not much lay-over time for a two-nite trip to follow. But think about the Sunset. On it's journey both east/west it stops in New Orleans for about 3-4 hours for servicing. Could that "process" not be copied in Chicago ??

So, if only the lay-over time could be shortened in Chicago between the Capitol/Chief, Amtrak COULD have another "national" train. But again, this all might be easier said than done.

Let me comment while I am at it about the possibility of extending Crescent Star service to the West coast. DREAM ON !!! Folks, we MUST face the REALITY that the freight companies do NOT want ANY more passengers trains on their tracks---PERIOD---and will do ANYTHING in their power to see that such things do not occur. Earlier, I posted on this forum my thoughts related to such. The freight companies , whether we want to ADMIT it or not , control the WHOLE future of passenger-rail service in this country. That is a fact, and I simply do not understand how anyone can deny it. Does anyone expect the freight companies to just sit idly by and permit Amtrak to "control" its rightful "share" of track-time ?? NO WAY !!

Right now there is a prime example of this situation in my home state of Pennsylvania. Some of you may know that Amtrak has be "negotiating" with Norfolk Southern about the "possibility" of initiating service with another train through Pennsylvania between Philly and Chicago---the Skyline Connection.

Amtrak (putting the cart before the horse) and "dreaming" that N/S would "welcome" the new train even had the "audacity ?" to place the train's schedule in the current timetable. Well, guess what----NO Skyline as of yet. Chances are VERY, VERY slim the service will EVER initiate.

Now, you can take Amtrak's word for it:

"Skyline service will not initiate until Amtrak is certain the train will be profitable."

The "real" truth is that negotiations are STALLED----and they have been STALLED from the VERY beginning. Norfolk/Southern simply wants too much MONEY to "welcome" the new train. Amtrak is unwilling to pay the fees necessary to initiate the new service. So NO Skyline Connection. I doubt very seriously is the service EVER initiates.

So to be honest, initiation of NEW service , or EXPANDED service must be considered VERY, VERY questionable at best. There MAY be some exceptions. Service between Boston and Portland, Maine is a prime example. But one must understand that the ONLY reason plans for THAT route extension moves forward is because there is NO freight OPPOSITION. Where else in the country can Amtrak possiblly consider new or expanded service without "stone-walling" from the freight people ??

I am "open-minded." Explain to me HOW Amtrak can possibly continue to exist and expand with TOTAL lack of cooperation from the major freight companies.

Let's face it----the freight-rail companies control Amtrak's entire "destiny." I do NOT like the idea , but how can it be denied.

Nobody wants to address the fact that the freight companies CONTROL the tracks and must AGREE to ANY and ALL Amtrak service expansion. Let's "get real." Explain to me exactly HOW the freight companies are to be "coerced" into FULL cooperation with Amtrak----THEN (and only then) let's talk service expansion.

Remember, Amtrak has been trying to "coerce" N/S for the Skyline Connection for MONTHS now---to no avail. Follow that "dilemma" , then multiply the magnitude fifty times. This will offer one some concept as to just how difficult (depressing ? ) Amtrak's future may be.

In closing, I think we must realize that "rebirthing" passenger-rail service in the nation is going to require BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars. An entire new, and SEPARATE track system is going to have to be built to accomodate Amtrak trains. There is simply no way Amtrak can SHARE track with the freight companies and survive. The question is , do Americans really WANT an extensive , national passenger-rail system----and (perhaps most importantly) will they be willing to pay for the ENORMOUS cost necessary. The project would be HUGE----comparable to building the entire, national interstate system (only at probably double the cost.)

How? Expensive but necessary improvements to the freight lines on which new Amtrak services will run. The Boston-Portland service is possible only because the state of Maine and the FRA have given Guilford, the track owner, millions of dollars to improve the roadbed, double track or add sidings, and improve or eliminate grade crossings. All the high-speed corridor plans are founded on the spending of tens of millions of dollars on improvements to freight lines, some of which have already begun (mainly grade-crossing eliminations and improvements) in the Midwest and Southeast. Mainly, these improvements are directly to speed up the trains. But they also "buy" the support of the track owner, whose trains are therefore able to move faster and with less likelihood of a grade crossing accident.

"In closing, I think we must realize that 'rebirthing' passenger-rail service in the
nation is going to require BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars."

Agreed. The $12 billion bond issue, though welcome and useful, is not enough by itself to complete the planned NEC improvements and the existing Midwest and Southeast corridor plans. And that's not including any future corridor systems that haven't been planned yet. (Texas Triangle, anyone? Please?)

"An entire new, and SEPARATE track system is going to have to be built to accomodate Amtrak trains. There is simply no way Amtrak can SHARE track with the freight companies and survive."

I disagree. With well-written contracts that make the quid pro quo clear (we're improving your line, you carry our trains in a timely manner), money spent on freight line improvements can end up not only directly speeding up the passenger trains but buying the track owner's cooperation. California's successful corridors operate on the tracks of others without serious problems, as do the Cascades in Washington and Oregon.

"The question is, do Americans really WANT an extensive, national passenger-rail system -- and (perhaps most importantly) will they be willing to pay for the ENORMOUS cost necessary."

I'm optomistic on this point.
(1) The wide support in the Senate for the $12 billion bond issue is particularly encouraging. A group of shrewd politicians believes there is popular sentiment in favor of intercity passenger rail, and their jobs depend on being able to read the public's desires and moods.
(2) The state of California spends what has to be spent to add trains to their services and speed them up. The rail budget there isn't quite bottomless, but the California government doesn't ask "Should we be adding or cutting service?" but instead "How much service should we add?"
(3) The popularity of the NEC, California, and Cascades corridors proves that if you have fast (though not necessarily French or Japanese fast) and frequent trains, with better amenities than flying (LEG ROOM!) or driving (washrooms, being able to get up and stretch), people WILL ride them.

"I think we will soon find out just how serious our nation is, don't you agree?"

Yes! The $12 billion/10 year bond issue and Amtrak's $30 billion/20 year capital budget request are "put up or shut up" moments, demanding once and for all that the government and people decide whether or not intercity passenger rail is a vital component of the transportation system that we will support adequately like the other components.

What is your reaction to the CSX official in Florida who stated , quite bluntly , that CSX wants NO high speed trains on its tracks ?

What about the situation in Pennsylvania where negotiations have "stalled" related to initiation of Skyline service because N/S is "disappointed" in the dollar figure Amtrak has offered ?

How much money is "too much" to "convince" the freight-companies that its "worth it" to accomodate Amtrak as much as possible ?

With the same amount of track , and the growing freight traffic, don't you think there will still be major track congestion that will "tie-up" passenger-trains ?

And where's the "clout" that tells freight companies that if certain "useage" rules are not obeyed, there will be penalties assesed ?

I am sorry, but I just am not convinced the freight companies are going to be anxious at ALL to cooperate----no matter how much money is flashed in front of them. Perhaps I am wrong.

Now when you mention grade crossing improvements and general track improvements (outside the NEC) who do you "envision" doing the actual WORK ? I presume it is the freight companies (using extra funds from Amtrak.) But wouldn't it be logical for the freight companies to "surmise" that if Amtrak if offering all this extra money fro track improvement, it will expect MUCH increased track useage in return ? Which puts the freight people in a tight spot. The track system WILL be improved for "our" trains, BUT, how much will our trains actually be able to use the tracks with all the added passenger traffic ?

You are correct in that the freight people will be anxious to have extra money for the track improvements over-all. BUT, I still think they will realize their are MAJOR "strings attached" and thus not as anxious as one might think to "participate."

1. I would imagine that the willingness or ability of the freight railroads to cooperate with Amtrak will be as diverse as the companies. A lot probably depends on the financial stability of the railroad, the amount of unused capacity on its lines, as well as its general attitude towards the public good. While all companies will require financial compensation, some companies will likely be more cooperative than others. Some just won't want to be bothered.

2. State transportation agencies are desperate for more options. They've run out of places to build more highways, and new roads often face extreme citizen opposition. Rail now offers them the only possibility of significant transportation expansion.

3. While rail systems are expensive, their cost pales in comparison to the cost of new highways. States are struggling to keep up with highway maintenence costs, much less new construction (which leads to even more maintenence expense). States will gladly pay for rail as highway costs escalate well beyond the availability of funding.

4. The government, not Amtrak should be paying the freight railroads to upgrade their tracks to better serve Amtrak. States are already doing that. Washington will follow along eventually, though it may require the retirement of a few more legislators. Congress is still in the kicking and screaming stage, but is beginning to show signs of growing out of it. What is needed is a partnership between the states, the federal government, Amtrak and the freight railroads to make it all work together. Not only can it not happen without the railroads, it cannot happen without the participation of government.

I am cautiously optimistic. I think in the next few years it will become evident at all levels of government that rail is the most cost effective way to expand transportation services. Then we could really see things start to change.

I have to be careful with myself as I oftentimes get "carried-away" when it comes to freight rail's obvious strong opposition to Amtrak operations on their tacks---even though they are being reimbursed fairly.

Since Amtrak was created by Congress , I feel very strongly that Congress should handle any and all aspects of operational policy between Amtrak and the freight companies. All negotiations and agreements and contracts between Amtrak and the freight companies should be done tthrough and by Congress. Doesn't this make sense ??

It is obvious that in certain parts of the country Amtrak has less "opposition" from freight companies. Somehow a "healthy" relationship has been fostered. This is wonderful, of course. Certain freight companies have started to realized that cooperation with Amtrak can be both profitable and beneficial. But what about the REST of the country ? Do we just sit idly by and let the freight companies "do their thing?"

What "procedure" is followed when a freight companies opposition to Amtrak is frequent and strong ? Is "flashing" more dollars a sensible solution ?

Amtrak has no "clout" and the freight companies know this. But Congress DOES. If Congress speaks, the freight companies LISTEN. Well, why doesn't Congress speak on Amtrak's behalf whenever a particular freight company "asserts" itself too strongly ?

I learned something interesting recently related to the original agreement formulated when Amtrak was formed back in 1970. There were two very interesting "stipulations" that the freight companies agreed upon:

1. That the total amount of track available at that time would NOT be reduced , but maintained by the freight companies.

We all know the freight companies did NOT "adhere" to that stipulation. Since 1970, the amount of track in the country has been reduced by at least 1/3.

2. That Amtrak trains would have track "priority."

We all know this has not happened at all. Freight traffic always has taken movement "priority."

I often wondered WHY this whole situation was allowed to happen. I was told that AMTRAK did not have enough LEGAL funds to take the freight companies to COURT to settle the matter !!! And of course, that was TRUE and the freight companies KNEW this.

I presume many of the "disputes" between Amtrak and the freight companies are LEGAL and thus would require lawyers and court cases and judges to "settle." This all requires MONEY and lots of it , which Amtrak never HAD---and , again , the freight companies probably realized this and do to this day. Thus "rules" can be "stretched" and "broken" with little chance of reprisal.

But, the major issue here is this : SHOULD , in reality , these disputes (many, LEGAL) BE Amtrak's responsibility in the FIRST place ? Well the answer is OBVIOUS----NO. Any and all disputes between Amtrak and the freight companies should be CONGRESSIONAL responsibility----since afterall, Amtrak IS a congressional entity. That is all I am trying to say.

If a freight companies "chooses" to cooperate with Amtrak and work cooperatively , all well and good. BUT, what procedures are in place to handle situations where there is little or no cooperation between Amtrak and the freight companies ?

Generally speaking, wouldn't you agree that cooperation between Amtrak and the freight companies is FORCED ? There are exceptions, yes. Forced cooperation requires "clout." Amtrak has NONE----Congress has MUCH.

Money seems to be the MAJOR issue here. Obviously, the freight companies want MORE. But, should the whole solution to solving freight-rails opposition to Amtrak simply BE a matter of "waving more dollars" in front of the freight companies ? Again, how much is TOO much ?

Does Amtrak build and maintain its OWN separate track system nationwide and thus END , forever , conflicts related to SHARING track-time and responsibility ?

OR

FREELY offer the freight-rail companies ALL the money and priviledges and concessions they request ?